On 13.09.2009, at 22:44, Sanko Robinson wrote: > I've followed this group for a while now so I know I'm in the > minority, > but I prefer the 2.x codebase. ...for no other reason than it's what > I'm more familiar with. However, I know the split is doing the (read: > my) dev process more harm than good so if there was a clear 3.x > version > I knew would be _singularly_ developed and cared for in the future, I > would support it even if the API from 2.0 is tossed aside.
I know and understand your concerns. I have been ping-ponging between versions a few times. The FLTK2 API is better, but the FLTK1 codebase is much more stable. So what can we do? I don't mind at all to take a large chunk of FLTK2 API aspects into FLTK3. The base concept is very similar. After all, they are based on each other and have the same core author. You'd be surprised how similar the calls are, once you mapped the classes like Fl_Group and fltk::Group... . My goal is as little wasted code (including for our users) as possible. A few minor name changes is still better than stalled development, right? (I am on thin ice here. This is all just a proposal. If you guys don't like my idea, please let me know) Matthias _______________________________________________ fltk-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk-dev
